The ‘opaque’ conflict, stability and security fund undermines government aims for transparency on aid, says joint committee on national security strategy

Bahraini police in the capital, Manama, 2012. The UK government has been accused of covering up the use of the security fund to train Bahraini police in crowd control.
Photograph: Mohammed Al-Shaikh/AFP/Getty

MPs and Lords have expressed “significant concern” over the lack of transparency, accountability and leadership of a £1bn government fund aimed at tackling conflicts and building stability overseas.

An inquiry into the conflict, stability and security fund (CSSF) described it as “opaque” and said the government had failed to provide enough evidence to scrutinise the fund effectively. The secrecy surrounding the fund, which comes partly from aid money, undermined the government’s objectives for transparency over aid funding, according to the joint committee on the national security strategy.

Trade, not poverty, could become focus of £1.3bn UK aid pot, watchdog warns

Read more

Without access to the National Security Council’s plans that govern the fund’s use, information about the programmes, and a breakdown of expenditure, the committee concluded: “We cannot provide parliamentary accountability for taxpayers’ money spent via the CSSF.”

Dame Margaret Beckett, chair of the committee, said there was some evidence that the fund was doing a better job than its predecessor, the conflict pool. “However, it is impossible for us to tell whether the fund is meeting the government’s goals or having the intended impact on the ground,” she said. “This is because government failed to provide sufficient evidence for the committee to carry out any evaluation.

“There is no central source of information to explain how the fund works. There are no published criteria on which programmes and projects are funded. There are no published measures of the impact of CSSF-derived activity. And who has responsibility for the fund’s management? No single minister is responsible – or accountable …

“This fund has great potential. At the very least, government must appoint a Cabinet Office minister to take responsibility for this £1bn fund. If not, a lack of collective responsibility risks degenerating into no responsibility at all.”

Beckett welcomed the CSSF plans for an annual report this year, but said it must bring forward plans to make it more transparent.

Reprieve, a human rights organisation, described the lack of oversight of the fund as “deeply worrying”.

Maya Foa, a director of Reprieve, said: “The committee is right to raise serious concerns over the secrecy surrounding the CSSF. This lack of oversight is deeply worrying, given the risk of complicity in terrible abuses – including torture and the death penalty – in countries like Bahrain and Ethiopia. Such substantial, high-risk security assistance surely deserves proper scrutiny by MPs and the public. Ministers must urgently commit to being fully transparent and accountable to parliament when it comes to this £1bn fund.”

In its report, the committee acknowledged the fund’s need for security, but said it agreed with Reprieve’s conclusion: “While some projects will of course require classification on the basis of their sensitivity, it does not follow that £1bn of public spending should fall under an umbrella of secrecy.”

In relation to Reprieve’s concerns over an ombudsman in the Bahraini prison system funded by CSSF, the report said: “The money allocated to the ombudsman of the Bahraini prison system is small, but it is questionable whether this is a good use of CSSF funding.”

The report said: “The government has not yet struck the right balance between security and transparency in relation to the CSSF.” It also raised concerns over leadership in conflict prevention, which it said “risks the UK’s international reputation for intellectual leadership in this policy area”.

A series of recommendations suggested the fund must “identify, assess and mitigate” risks associated with fragile states before, during and after projects. It also recommended that the fund reduce the number of countries in which it is involved.

Plan to align UK aid with trade policy could sideline poor countries

Read more

Launched in April 2015, the CSSF was designed to offer a more strategic cross-government approach to states in conflict than the previous fund. The National Security Council, which had no role in the previous pool, was brought in to oversee the CSSF following criticism that it lacked strategic direction.

The fund has an annual budget of £1.127bn in 2016-17, which is set to rise to £1.3bn in 2019-20, compared with £683m in 2014-15.

The CSSF combines official development assistance (ODA) with non-aid funding, which contributes to Britain meeting its targets related to aid spending – 0.7% of GNI – and defence spending, which is 2% of GDP. In 2016-2017, about two-fifths (£484m) of the total budget came from ODA.

However, the committee said: “We note that £134m of the CSSF’s £1.127bn budget in 2016–17 counts towards both government targets. We question whether this double-counting is consistent with the separate objectives of the two targets.”

A government spokeswoman welcomed the report and said ministers would “consider the option of one minister being responsible” for the fund.

She added: “On human rights, the committee welcomed the updated government guidance on overseas security and justice programmes about how to manage human rights risks. All relevant CSSF programmes are required to use this guidance.”